Steve Loeppky

+1 on merging so we have something, and the moving to specs when it's ready to house it. Can you tackle this please @ElPaisano ?

Is this really a P0? It doesn't sound like it. (I think we should only apply P0 on things where we're dropping everything else to get them done.)

Is the next step here reviews on https://github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/pull/2286 and https://github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/pull/2295. I see there hasn't been progress for a couple of weeks. I'd love to see these get over the line...

@ckousik : can we link to the benchmarks that were run?

Just curious what the status is here.

What is the done criteria here? @ckousik : what did you have in mind? @marten-seemann : what are you expecting?

@ckousik : thanks for sharing. We're ultimately going to need @marten-seemann to weigh in. A couple of things: 1. Are there any next steps you'd recommend of these findings? 2....

Thanks @ckousik . For 3, the key thing is to enable reproducibility. This is for two fold: 1. Easy enable others to spot-check the methodology. It can be useful to...

@Jorropo : I like the idea of this but in practice is this actually going to help with resource manager complaints since the go-libp2p resource manager does its own state...

2023-01-31: we pushed to next iteration because of concerns about getting caught in CPU death spiral and not actually dying. This requires extra discussion and we don't have bandwidth for...